Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Musa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please defer merge-related discussion to the appropriate article talk page(s). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mount_Musa

This article, along with many of the other other articles dealing with the Biblical Mount Sinai give little information, if none at all, outside the main article. I request this page and all the others that I will nominate be deleted. Trevor 17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of reasons stated above.

Trevor 18:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can also see the possibility of a merge, but I have experience in that area, so whatever the community agrees on is fine with me.Trevor 18:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've vote for a Merge with Biblical_Mount_Sinai, but from what I can see, that article already contains more information about most of the individual candidates than their own articles. I can see no rationale whatsoever for having separate articles that aren't as informative. Geoffrey Spear 17:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Redirect All - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's possibly a mischaracterization to say that these are "articles dealing with the Biblical Mount Sinai", given that they are articles about real, physical, mountains that one can find on a map. Looking up information about Mount Musa I find that it is 2285 metre high, for example. Why should Wikipedia not have articles on these mountains telling readers this sort of stuff? Please don't let religion blind you to the existence of geography and geology. Keep. Uncle G 19:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment it seems pretty clear that the only claim to notability to most of these mountains is that someone has claimed that they're a likely candidate to be the biblical Sinai. If any of them have any independent notability, I'd be happy to vote Keep on them. -Geoffrey Spear 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Mount Serbal, for starters, is [http://touregypt.net/parks/stkath.htm one of the five highest mountains in Egypt]. And if you think that religion is the only thing that people have written about these mountains, then please read ISBN 0292727992 (which covers Mount Serbal on pages 39 to 43, within the chapter on geomorphology and drainage). Uncle G 23:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect All --Shuki 19:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep on all except Hala'l Bedr (which should redirect to Hala-'l Badr). The articles are stubs about mountains which may be notable in their own right. The fact that they are possible candidates for the Biblical Mount Sinai is only one facet of their notability. I'm only giving a weak keep as I'm not sure that all mountains are inherently notable (although all ants are, so I suppose all mountains should be) Yomanganitalk 19:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep - since many mountains have stubs with less info there is no reason why these shouldn't be kept. Mount Musa obviously merges with Mount Sinai, but the rest should be kept. There is more information about them around, although it tends to get hidden by the number of webpages on the location of the bibilical Mount Sinai. I managed to expand Mount Serbal slightly with a little work, and I'm sure the same would be possible with the others. Yomanganitalk 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Merging doesn't solve much--you'd have to merge it into the Sinai Peninsula article, really. It's just a stub, but it's the second highest mountain on a pretty big peninsula. Sounds notable enough, maybe.-Kmaguir1 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. wikipediatrix 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Mount Musa into Mount Sinai, which is about the same mountain. The other nominated articles should be debated independently. --Elonka 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've merged all the info from Mount Musa into Mount Sinai but don't want to redirect until the AFD is finished as it could be confusing. Yomanganitalk 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merged Bedr. I agree Musa should be merged to Mount Sinai per Yomangani, When I created the stubs, I didn't realise the redundancy, so I merged Bedr - it was all the same info. As for the rest, unless they are redundant, they seem like they are important enough to grow in time. per Incrementalism -- Sampo Torgo [talk] - 16:47, June 9, 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all the ones that refer to different geographical locations. Mountains seem inherently encyclopedic, the religious context is just snow on the summit. There are lots of articles on much smaller mountains in the UK that have no cultural significance. Espresso Addict 02:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. My first reaction was to follow Expresso Lover. However thinking it through merge with Mount Sinai seems the sensible option (it after the same place) as Yomangani & Elonka. However that does not change my view that there can and should be geographical stubs that are quite valid - the others should be dealt with individually. That said a number seem to usefully relate to Biblical Mount Sinai and might be incorporated there. Nigel (Talk) 12:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.